Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2022.06.27Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Online7:00 PMMonday, June 27, 2022 On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, which allows a local agency to meet remotely when: 1. The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency; 2. State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and 3. Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. On June 20, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 078-2022 stating that the City Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1. There is still a declared state of emergency; 2. The State recommends that individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks; and 3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners in their meeting spaces. Pursuant to Resolution Number 078-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the June 27, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging on to the Zoom meeting listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on YouTube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the consent agenda. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure your comment is received and read to the Planning Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 27, 2022. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Planning Commission after the meeting. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/7/2022 June 27, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 883 6008 3406 Passcode: 314856 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 883 6008 3406 Passcode: 314856 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There are no Minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS There are no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 620 Trenton Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Ted Catlin, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc ., applicant and architect; Patricia and Griffin Tormey, property owners) (96 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali a. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/7/2022 June 27, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1829 Sebastian Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; Gina and Yousef Shamieh, property owners ) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 2758 Summit Drive, R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Raymond Frank, applicant and architect; Charles Chiparo and Laura Rupenian, property owners) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit c. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 2313 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Jeff Alan Gard, applicant and architect; Ronan McConnell and Michele McKenna, property owners) (104 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi a. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting of June 20, 2022 12. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, June 27, 2022 at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on June 27, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on July 7, 2022, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $708.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/7/2022 June 27, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/7/2022 City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 620 Trenton Way Meeting Date: June 27, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Architect: Ted Catlin, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc. APN: 029-165-210 Property Owners: Patricia and Griffin Tormey Lot Area: 6,900 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing one-story, single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. The project proposes a first and second story addition, which would increase the floor area from 1,930 SF (0.28 FAR) to 3,304 SF (0.48 FAR) where 3,308 SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). With this application, the number of bedrooms in the main dwelling would increase from 3 to 7 (office, study, and playroom qualify as potential bedrooms). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site for the main dwelling. Two covered spaces (19’-4” x 19’-0”, clear interior dimensions) are provided in the existing attached garage; one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project complies with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020 A.1.b). 620 Trenton Way Lot Area: 6,900 SF Plans date stamped: June 21, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 19’-6” - 16’-8” (to front porch) 22’-3” 15’-2” (block average) 20’-0” Side Setbacks (left, 1st flr): (2nd flr): (right, 1st flr): (2nd flr): 5’-7” - 15’-10” - no change 7’-9” no change 25’-0” 7’-0” 7’-0” 7’-0” 7’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 25’-4” - 33’-1” 51’-0” 15’-0” 20’-0” Item No. 8a Regular Action Design Review 620 Trenton Way -2- 620 Trenton Way Lot Area: 6,900 SF Plans date stamped: June 21, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Lot Coverage: 2,065 SF 30% 2,227 SF 32% 2,760 SF 40% FAR: 1,930 SF 0.28 FAR 3,304 SF 0.48 FAR 3,308 SF 1 0.48 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 7 --- Off Street Parking: 1 covered (13’-9” x 19’-11”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) 2 covered (19’-4” x 19’-0’) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) 2 covered (18’x18’ for existing) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’ for existing) Building Height: 14’-5” 24’-8” 30’-0” Plate Height (1st flr): (2nd flr): 8’-0” - 8’-0” 8’-0” 9’-0” 8’-0” Declining Height Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.10.055 ¹ (0.32 x 6,900) + 1,100 SF = 3,308 SF (0.48 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites • Doors: wood front entry door and garage doors • Siding: cement plaster on 1st floor, cedar shingles on 2nd floor • Roof: asphalt composition shingle • Other: brick–clad plinth walls and wood-clad columns at front porch, wood gable vent, wood shutters Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on June 13, 2022, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The following is a summary of the Commission’s comments/suggestions from the Design Review Study meeting: • add shutters to the second floor windows to match the window character on the first floor; • there is a feeling of heaviness on upper floor; • consider changing the garage door to craftsman style; • consider bringing the gable vents down a bit to even the scale of the house; • consider placing a planter box in front of the kitchen windows; and • provide renderings. Design Review 620 Trenton Way -3- The applicant submitted a response letter (see attachments), dated June 15, 2022, and revised plans, date stamped June 21, 2022, to address the Planning Commission comments. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The proposed addition to an existing single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25; the proposed style of the house will blend with the existing neighborhood based on the proposed massing and variety of exterior building materials and architectural details, such as the covered front porch with wood-clad columns, a combination of cement plaster and cedar shingle exterior siding, a wood entry door, wood window shutters, and aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites complement the architectural style of the house and is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio and declining height envelope requirements. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the Design Review 620 Trenton Way -4- application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped June 21, 2022, sheets A0.0 through A5.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; Design Review 620 Trenton Way -5- 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Fazia Ali Assistant Planner c. Ted Catlin, applicant and architect Patricia and Griffin Tormey, property owners Attachments: June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter to the Planning Commission, dated June 15, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 17, 2022 Area Map City of Burlingame Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 1829 Sebastian Drive Meeting Date: June 27, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Tim Raduenz, Form+One APN: 025-302-050 Property Owners: Gina and Yousef Shamieh Lot Area: 9,321 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains a one-story single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. The applicant is proposing a first floor addition at the rear of the house, which includes a 210 SF loggia, and a new 632 SF second story with a second floor deck located above the proposed loggia . The proposed house would increase in floor area from 3,083 SF (0.33 FAR) to 3,699 SF (0.34 FAR) where 4,083 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). The subject property is located within the Hillside Overlay Zone. Code Section 25.20.040 states that hillside development shall be designed to preserve existing distant views. View preservation shall be limited to obstruction of distant views to San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Airport, and Mills Canyon from primary indoor living areas (living rooms and family rooms) (Code Section 25.20.040.B). Planning staff would note that the Special Permit requirement, limit of 75 SF , and increased side setbacks (Code Section 25.10.030 – Table 25.10-2) do not apply to lots located within the Hillside Overlay in order to accommodate the ability to capture views from these properties and because many of these lots are sloped so that a deck/balcony is the primary way to provide a level area in the rear yard. With this project, the number of bedrooms would increase from three to five (the proposed den on the second floor counts as a bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the attached garage (19’-0” x 21’-10” clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off- street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020.C.1.b.); and  Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.70.020.A.). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1829 Sebastian Drive 2 1829 Sebastian Drive Lot Area: 9,321 SF Plans date stamped: June 16, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 15’-9” n/a no change 72’-7” 15’-0” or block average 20’-0” or block average Side (left): (right): 7’-7” 8’-0” no change 8’-0” (to addition) 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 57’-5” n/a 35’-11” 35’-11” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 3,119 SF 33.5% 3,333 SF 35.8% 3,728 SF 40% FAR: 3,083 SF 0.33 FAR 3,699 SF 0.34 FAR 4,083 SF 1 0.44 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 5 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (15’-0” x 21'-10” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 2 covered (19’-0” x 21’-10” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 2 covered (18' x 18' for existing conditions) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Height: 20’-8” 28’-6” 30'-0" DH Envelope: not applicable complies Special Permit (C.S. 25.10.035.2) ¹ (0.32 x 9,321 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,083 SF (0.44 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:  Windows: wood clad  Doors: wood clad  Siding: board and batten, brick, stucco  Roof: concrete roof tiles and asphalt shingles Staff Comments: Please note that there are a number of emails that were submitted from neighbors with concerns about the project; see attachments. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1829 Sebastian Drive 3 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on May 23, 2022, the Commission had several comments/suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached May 23, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The following is a summary of the Commission’s comments/suggestions from the Design Review Study meeting:  Label the tree species for existing and proposed trees;  Does not see any view blockages with proposed additions;  For the second story addition, consider rotating roof profile 90 degrees to further minimize appearance;  Work with neighbors that have expressed concerns;  Suggest landscaping on side of house to provide screening and add privacy;  Consider translucent windows on second story, right side; and  Provide renderings with main perspective view of the rear additions and include front perspective as well. The applicant submitted a response letter (see attachments), dated June 12, 2022, and revised plans, date stamped June 16, 2022, to address the Planning Commission’s comments. The applicant also installed story poles to show the outline of the proposed second story addition. Please see attachments for the story pole plan and photos. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including acce ssory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The proposed addition to an existing single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25; the Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1829 Sebastian Drive 4 architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring hip roofs, concrete roof tiles and asphalt shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, board and batten, brick, and stucco siding, and wood clad windows and doors) is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio, height and declining height envelope requirements. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Any decision to approve a Hillside Area Construction Permit application pursuant to Code Section 25.20.040 and Chapter 25.70 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the purpose of the Hillside Overlay Zone. 2. The project complies with the development standards found in Section 25.20.040.B through I. 3. The placement of the proposed construction does not have a substantial impact on adjacent properties or on the character of the immediate neighborhood. Suggested Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the Hillside Overlay Zone and does not have a substantial impact on adjacent properties or on the character of the immediate neighborhood in that: the site is located on a sloping lot, which slopes upward from front to rear by more than seventeen feet, with the proposed additions located on the lower portion of the lot and with trees along the rear property line and proposed landscaping along both side property lines screening the subject property; that the front elevation interface with the street still appears as a predominantly single-story house and therefore the surrounding properties will not be impacted by the proposed additions; and that the two-story portion of house is located more than seventy feet from the front property line and will be mostly screened by existing and proposed landscaping therefore would minimize any impacts on long distant views. 2. The proposed project complies with the development standards found in Section 25.20.040.B through I as shown on the proposed plans and installed story poles. For these reasons, the project does not obstruct distant views from habitable areas with nearby dwelling units and therefore the project may be found to be compatible with Hillside Area Construction Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 16, 2022, sheets T1.0, GN, CG, SW, SP, Topographic and Boundary Survey, A1.0 through A5.0, A9.0, and L-1; Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1829 Sebastian Drive 5 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shal l not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project archite ct or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the arch itectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1829 Sebastian Drive 6 approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Tim Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and architect Gina and Yousef Shamieh, property owners Attachments: May 23, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter to the Planning Commission, dated June 12, 2022 Neighborhood Outreach Letter, dated June 17, 2022 Story Pole Plan Story Pole Certification, dated June 15, 2022 Story Pole Photos Neighbor Letters of Concern Project Application Hillside Area Construction Permit Application Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 17, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, May 23, 2022 a.1829 Sebastian Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; Gina and Yousef Shamieh, property owners) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1829 Sebastian Dr - Staff Report 1829 Sebastian Dr - Attachments 1829 Sebastian Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > Public comment sent via email by Christine Lee, 1825 Sebastian Drive: Hello, I am the next door neighbor who is directly affected by the project. I am concerned about the two story addition and encroachment over my property line for two feet. Their surveyor installed the stake on my property. How does this work? Are they going to have automatic approval to expand the property line based on the surveyor’s report if they get an approval of the project? Please provide your comments and assistance over these concerns. My property dimension measures out to 72’ per the county record. > Public comment sent via email: As a neighbor to the residence of 1829 Sebastian Drive I believe the construction of a second story is disruptive to the immediate surrounding residents. 1. 1829 Sebastian Drive overlooks at a significant bay view. The construction of a second story would obstruct the surrounding homes views. 2. A second story would invade my family ’s privacy by providing an uncomfortably close overhead view of my house’s backyard. > Public comment sent via email: Question on the existing front elevation plan. Not sure if it matters but the existing garage is currently located on the right side not the left side as the existing front elevation shows. The proposed second story addition is showing it will be located on the right side which would be behind the existing garage. >(Raduenz: Just to clarify, we’ll definitely respond to the emails and reach out to them.) Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Identify proposed trees on the landscape plan. > Consider rotating the roof profile on the second story about 90 degrees. It would look smaller from the street if it is oriented that way. > I don’t have a lot of issues with the addition towards the back, it doesn ’t necessarily impact the design of the front. I like the idea of rotating the roof, it will make a better look on the second story Page 1City of Burlingame May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes addition. I definitely agree that the neighbors need to work some things out with the applicant. I don ’t know that I see a hillside view blockage because the properties behind all have trees in front of them, so they are looking at trees. I don ’t see that anybody is actually going to see this design. It is really that the neighbors on either side needs to come to a discussion and be able to deal. The landscape on the side needs to be considered by the applicant on their side. Maybe they can do some screening using landscaping that would help minimize the impact of the second story addition to the neighbors’ backyards. It looks like the neighbor to the right has a pool back there, so it would be nice to deal with the windows back there and be able to provide landscape screening. Otherwise, I don ’t have any objection to the addition or its location. > I just want to echo my fellow commissioner ’s recommendation about turning the roof that would be a very nice idea. I would also recommend that we be provided with 3D renderings. In the back, when you look at the rear elevation, for some reason dimensionally it seems very tight and closed in. It is in the rear so it doesn’t bother me that much, but I am concerned about what that looks like at the front. So if you turn the roof and provide a 3D rendering, I feel like I can be in favor of this project. >I agree with my fellow commissioners’ comments. I appreciate if the applicants would reach out to the neighbors. The neighbor to the right might be the one commenting about the views from the windows into their yard. From what I see based on the floor plans, it doesn ’t seem like there are any good views out of any windows on the second story. It looks like it might be in the primary bedroom closet that those windows are facing the neighbor to the right. The neighbor to the left is quite a distance away since the addition is to the rear right side of the home. A proposed rendering would also be helpful to understand the mass and scaling of this addition in relationship to the current house. Requests that a rendering be presented from the view treating the rear as the main perspective view in addition to the front rendering. I don’t see that there is any view blockage issues that I can gather from visiting the site. The addition being pushed at the back is a good decision. >From the second story master, it is a closet and a hallway from the stair that have windows facing the neighbor to the right. Encourage the applicant to consider a translucent window solution to make that privacy concern go away. Page 2City of Burlingame Page 1 of 1 Form + One ▪ Design & Planning ▪ 4843 Silver Springs Drive▪ Park City ▪ UT ▪ 84098 ▪ (415) 819.0304 ▪ tim@formonedesign.com Form + One 4843 Silver Springs Drive Park City, UT 84098 P+ 415.819.0304 E + tim@formonedesign.com TRANSMITTAL FORM To: City of Burlingame From: Tim Raduenz Subject: 1829 Sebastian Drive (Planning) Date Sent: 06/12/2022 Commission Response Number of Pages: 1 Response to Planning Commission Comments: In response to your comments last planning meeting: 1. We added story poles for yourself and all neighbors to see, as you can see from street level its barely visible 2. We have reached out to neighbors again as stated, we are working with them about privacy concerns along with our client’s privacy concerns as they do have a young family as well! 3. We have changed the design of the roof to help with scale and did gable facing street, it does work better! Thanks! 4. Landscaping: We added a full landscape plan to better review and reflect concerns and to better reflect the changes and also to help with privacy concerns of owners and neighbors. To that end we believe we have put together a nicely designed plan that works with the neighbor aesthetic and also works with privacy concerns and the clients need for more space. Best, Tim Raduenz – CGBP Page 1 of 2 Form + One ▪ Design & Planning ▪ 4843 Silver Springs Drive▪ Park City ▪ UT ▪ 84098 ▪ (415) 819.0304 ▪ tim@formonedesign.com Form + One 4843 Silver Springs Drive Park City, UT 84098 P+ 415.819.0304 E + tim@formonedesign.com TRANSMITTAL FORM To: City of Burlingame From: Tim Raduenz + Owners Subject: 1829 Sebastian (Response to Neighbors) Date Sent: 06/17/2022 Number of Pages: 1 Response to Neighborhood Comments: Response to Mr. Hoeck (1860 Capistrano) We have added the story poles to the site on 06.16.22, so to review the project, hopefully that will alleviate some of the questions on the design aspect. On the landscape front, we have added landscaping plans (professionally) done, and you and the owners can review and approve as needed for privacy and screening, I’m sure there is a good solution to that, that you can review together and approve. These are items that the commission normally do not get involved in and that the good neighbhorly thing to do, is review together. We will share these landscape plans with you. The fence item: you and the owners can review the added lattice, it more of a privacy concern for the owners, but I’m sure we can not do it or review directly. Response to Wing Yuen (1833 Sebastian) We have added the story poles to the site on 06.16.22, so to review the project, hopefully that will alleviate some of the questions on the design aspect. On the landscape front, we have added landscaping plans (professionally) done, and you and the owners can review and approve as needed for privacy and screening, I’m sure there is a good solution to that, that you can review together and approve. These are items that the commission normally do not get involved in and that the good neighbhorly thing to do, is review together. We will share these landscape plans with you. Privacy Concerns: We only have 2 windows, both in rooms that are not for living, one is the hallway (already has satin etched bottom so no one can look down into your yard, and the other one is in a closet, and it’s a tall awning style, which is naturally private! These designs were presented at the first review and we believe it gives privacy to BOTH you and our clients! PS: sorry about not getting the notice in the mail! Page 2 of 2 Form + One ▪ Design & Planning ▪ 4843 Silver Springs Drive▪ Park City ▪ UT ▪ 84098 ▪ (415) 819.0304 ▪ tim@formonedesign.com Best, Tim Raduenz STORY POLE LEGEND: = STORY POLE = PLASTIC NETTING = GROUND STAKESTORY POLE NOTES:1. HEIGHTS ARE BASED FROM FINISHED ROOFLINE OF EXISTING HOUSE.2. CONFIRM ALL REQUIREMENTS WITH TIMRADUENZ - FORM+ONE - 415-819-03043. REQUIRED FOR NEIGHBORS TO SEE HEIGHT+ SCALE OF PROJECT.K-108-3ANTIQUEFAUCETBRASS K-108-3ANTIQUEFAUCETBRASS K-108-3ANTIQUEFAUCETBRASSLSM 45LSM 45D.S.D.S.(E) CEMENT TILE ROOF(E) CLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) PROTECT612(E) SLOPE612(E) SLOPE(E)SLOPE6 12 (E) SLOPE 6 12 (E) SLOPE 6 12 (E) SLOPE 6 12 (E) SLOPE (E) RIDGE (E) RIDGE(E) RIDGE(E) VALLEY(E) VALLEY( E ) V A L L E Y(E) VALLEY( E ) H I P (E) HIP(E) HIP(E) HIP(E) G.S.M. GUTTER (PROTECT)(E) G.S.M. GUTTER (PROTECT)6 12 (E) SLOPED.S.A3.32 A3.22 A3.01D.S.6 12 (N) SLOPE 6 12 (N) SLOPE(N) RIDGE(N) RIDGE(N)(E)(N) ASPHALT ROOF(N) CLASS A: FIRE RATED D.S.D.S.18'-0"18'-0"24'-8"24'-8"18'-0"18'-0"Proposed Story Pole Plan See DetailsSP Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001 002 003 004 005 006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098MR. + MRS. YOUSEF SHAMIEH 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :01.07.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_01Job No. : Owner : APN#: 025-302-050 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET MR. + MRS. YOUSEF 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formSPScale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1PROPOSED STORY POLE PLANGENERAL GUIDELINES FROM BURLINGAME, THIS IS TO HELPCONTRACTOR INSTALL POLES CORRECTLY2GENERAL GUIDESLINES SP From: Wing Yuen [mailto:changyuen@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 10:55 PM To: CD/PLG-Amelia Kolokihakaufisi <ameliak@burlingame.org> Subject: Re: 1829 Sebastian Drive Hi, Amelia: My name is Wing Yuen who lives in 1833 Sebastian Drive, the adjacent neighbor of 1829 Sebastian Drive. Christine Lee, who sent you below email, told us later afternoon if we would join the public hearing tonight, but we have never received mail of the public hearing notice and were thus not aware of it. As a result, we did not have enough time to review the plan which would potentially make a significant impact on character of our neighborhood, our property and on us. We will be appreciated if we will be notified in future hearings or any so that we can address our concerns accordingly. Thanks. Best regards Wing Yuen From: christine lee [mailto:chrislee11621@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 5:07 PM To: Public Comment <publiccomment@burlingame.org>; GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Subject: 1829 Sebastian Drive project Hello, I am the next door neighbor who's directly infected by the project. I am concerned about the two story addition and encroachment over my property line for 2 feet.. Their surveyor installed the stake on my property. How does this work? Are they going to have automatic approval to expand the property line based on the surveyor's report if they get an approval on the project? Please provide your comment(s) & assistance over these concerns. My property dimension measures out to 72 feet per the county record. Regards, Christine Lee COMPASS 1440 Chapin Avenue, Ste.200 Burlingame, CA 94010 650)303-2688 (c) c.lee@compass.com chrislee11621@yahoo.com From: Jeff Hoeck [mailto:jeffhoeck@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 7:17 AM To: Burlingame Planning Dept <planningdept@burlingame.org> Subject: 1829 Sebastian Drive City of Burlingame Community Development Department Kevin Gardiner and all members of the Planning Commission re: 1829 Sebastian Drive We zoom-attended the meeting of May 23, 2022 and wish to address the following. The second floor that is proposed for 1829 Sebastian Drive would definitely affect our view. I believe the trees proposed would additionally do the same although it is not clear exactly what is proposed with those trees. Can they add lattice to a shared fence without agreement? The owners have never reached out to us to discuss any of this. Would this project then set precedence for future additions on that side of the street? We would appreciate it if any or all of the board would come by and see what we are describing. That would probably put any doubt to rest. If we could be called ahead of time we could show you the effect from both outside and inside our house. Thank you for your time. Jeff and Linda Hoeck 1860 Capistrano Way Burlingame, CA 94010 (415)350-5121 (Jeff) From: Wing [mailto:changyuen@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 10:51 AM To: CD/PLG-Amelia Kolokihakaufisi <ameliak@burlingame.org> Subject: Re: 1829 Sebastian Drive Hi Amelia, today the project is putting up poles. I took some pictures from our house and outside. It seems to me that the proposed plan will be higher than all in nearby properties. We rarely see this in Mills Estate and I am not sure if we are all allowed to build second floor except those on corner lots. To me, it not only affects us but also all nearby properties in terms of privacy, views and characters of the neighborhood. We cordially invite the city planning and commissioners to stop by our house and neighbors and we would also like to listen to future plan on the redevelopment of Mills Estate and hillside areas. Thanks for your time. best regards Wing Yuen Sent from my iPhone On Jun 15, 2022, at 10:17 AM, Wing <changyuen@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Hi Amelia, today the project is putting up poles and attached please find pictures from our houses. It affects us and neighborhood from all. We welcome you and the commissioners to our house to check this out. Best regards Wing Yuen 1833 Sebastian Sent from my iPhone From: christine lee [mailto:chrislee11621@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:56 PM To: CD/PLG-Amelia Kolokihakaufisi <ameliak@burlingame.org> Subject: 1829 Sebastian Drive Hello Amelia, I am sending these pictures to show how massive the second story will be if the actual construction finishes. The height of the second story is much higher than what we have anticipated. . It will look into my backyard and we will have no privacy at all. Their windows/sliding doors will face toward to my house directly and due to their big deck attached front of the building will be even closer. I am very stressed l that I may lose my peaceful environment. Also this is the first time I'm mentioning that they added three windows on the side that faces my bathrooms where there were no windows prior to their purchase in 2020. I had to reduce one of my bathroom windows' size and replace my other window for extra privacy. I hope this will make planning department understands my problems with my new neighbor. Thank you. Should I send these pictures to commissioners as well? Sincerely. Christine Lee 1825 Sebastian Drive Burlingame CA 650)303-2688 (c) chrislee11621@yahoo.com From: Wing Yuen [mailto:changyuen@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 8:38 AM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Subject: Fw: 1829 Sebastian Dear Commissioners and City Planning Department, Our names are Wing and Teresa, owners of 1833 Sebastian Drive. As a family of six, we have been living here since 1999. For more than 20 years, we have witnessed all the changes, but never a massive and second story addition on the same street. Our family strongly opposes such addition based on the followings: 1. Plan and Land Survey: After reading their plan and land survey report, to protect our own interest, we will retain our own surveyor to conduct another land survey report. It looks like that their report pushes their lot line a couple feet north of the current property line (our side). Our neighbors (1829 Sebastian Drive) failed to notify us about the proposed change in the lot line, which ostensibly reduces our side lot by a couple feet, when we compare it with previous permit record, and from what we measure ourselves. The previous owners of 1829 Sebastian Drive lived there for about 49 years, and we have lived in 1833 Sebastian Drive for 22+ years. Twenty years ago, the fence along the lot line was replaced with the current fence by the previous owners of 1829 Sebastian Drive. There has been no change from our side structure to the described front line, as also proved from previous permit record. After the report is done, we will review this issue with the city again. 2. Neighborhood Pattern and Lot Characteristics: Mills Estates, including neighborhoods in Millbrae, consists of predominantly one-story ranchers. There are exceptions, but the few two-story homes are predominantly on the corner lots built in 1960s. In addition, the existing two-story homes do not extend all the way to the backyard. Such neighborhood patterns have provided us open space feeling for past 20+ years. 3. Mass and Bulk The story pole they put up has already towered buildings adjacent to it. It looks just right next to us and massive. It may even look bigger after the structure is built. 4. Views: The second-story addition and windows will create unwanted views from our backyard, side-yard, pool, family room, and master bedroom. Our green hillside views for the last 20 years would be permanently blocked. The second addition and windows facing the Bay can be seen from the street of Sebastian. 5. Privacy: The second-floor addition overlooks all back-yard, side-yard, family room, kitchen, master bedroom, and even its bathroom. The proposed addition of trees does not change such a fact. 6. Sunlight and Shade The plan does not provide calculation of sunlight lost from my home and shading over our yard and perhaps master bedroom. We are concerned to lose natural sunlight and potentially waste more energy by relying on electricity. An environmental study including energy loss for the neighborhood would be concerns to all parties related. 7. Structural: The proposal includes the removal of an existing wall and construction of another new one. The new retaining wall on north side is proposed to build without the removal of existing fence. It also includes planting of new trees on the side but the removal of old existing trees at the back. We are not sure if such proposal would affect all structures and environmental issues on our side as well. A thorough structural study should also be included for concerns to all parties related. We appreciate all of your efforts. We cordially invite all of you to visit the neighborhood, neighbors, and our home to support all of the above. Thank you. Best regards Wing Yuen and Teresa Chang Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second floor addition to an existing single- unit dwelling at 1829 Sebastian Drive, Zoned R-1, Gina and Yousef Shamieh, property owners, APN: 025-302-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 27, 2022, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official rec ords of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of June, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1829 Sebastian Drive Effective July 8, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 16, 2022, sheets T1.0, GN, CG, SW, SP, Topographic and Boundary Survey, A1.0 through A5.0, A9.0, and L-1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1829 Sebastian Drive Effective July 8, 2022 that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled ; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 1829 Sebastian Drive 300’ noticing APN #: 025-302-050 SIDE SETABCK72'-0"(E) LOT LINE6'-0" 8'-6"TOP PLATE 8'-4 1/2"RIDGE 30'-0"12'-0"7'-6"AVG. T.O.C. FIN. FLOOR DHE 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 12'-0"DHE454.51'20'-8 5/8"(E) LOT LINE(E) MARVIN WDS. + DRS, WOOD CLAD CONCRETE ROOF TILES BRICK STUCCO PAINTED BOARD + BATTEN (E) WHITE (E) (E) WHITE (E)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)455.55' 454.62' 451.70 481.70' 464.05' 472.41'SIDE SETABCK72'-0"(E) LOT LINE6'-0" TOP PLATE RIDGE 12'-0"FIN. FLOOR 455.55' DHE 454.62' 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 12'-0"DHE101.25'(E) LOT LINE464.05' 472.41' (E) MARVIN WDS. + DRS, WOOD CLAD (E) CONCRETE ROOF TILES BRICK STUCCO PAINTED BOARD + BATTEN (E) WHITE (E) (E) WHITE (E)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)45° 8'-6"30'-0"RIDGE 28'-6 1/4"480.20' FIN. FLOOR 465.49' 7'-11 1/2"TOP PLATE 473.44' 6'-9 1/4" 1'-5 1/4"ADDITION 2ND FLOOR 45°7'-6"AVG. T.O.C.451.70 481.70' 6 12 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings.Rev.:001002003004005006Description :Date :Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098 MR. + MRS. YOUSEF SHAMIEH1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA. 94010Title :Project :Date :01.07.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_01Job No. :Owner :APN#: 025-302-050Contractor :PLANNING SETZoning: RESIDENTIALBUILDING SETMR. + MRS. YOUSEF1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA. 94010 one DESIGN PLANNING form Existing + Proposed ElevationsSee Details A3.0 A3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 1EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION A3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 2PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION 1 1 1 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM 05.03.202205.11.2022 (E) LOT LINE(E) LOT LINE72'-0"12'-0"7'-6"DHE (E) WHITE SAVE (E) BLACK (E) BLACK TEMP. 4X14 VENT4X14 VENT4X14 VENT4X14 VENT (E) SAVE (E) SAVE (E)(E)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF) 8'-6"TOP PLATE 8'-4 1/2"RIDGE 30'-0"AVG. T.O.C. FIN. FLOOR DHE 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 20'-8 5/8"455.55' 454.62' 464.05' 472.41' 481.70' 451.70 454.51'(E) LOT LINE(E) LOT LINE72'-0" FIN. FLOOR 8'-6"TOP PLATE30'-0"AVG. T.O.C. DHE 30' HEIGHT LIMIT TEMP. TEMP. ADDITION (N) (N)(E) (E) (N)(E) NO WORK 4X14 VENT 4X14 VENT 4X14 VENT 4X14 VENT 4X14 VENT (E) CONCRETE ROOF TILES MARVIN WDS. + DRS, WOOD CLAD (N) STUCCO TO MATCH (E) STUCCO (TYP.)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)(E) GRADE (TYPICAL)(E) GRADE (TYPICAL) RIDGE 28'-6"FIN. FLOOR 7'-11 1/2"TOP PLATE 6'-9 1/4" 1'-5 1/4"TEMP. (N)(N) 2ND FLOOR 45°3'-6"6 12 7'-6"45° 455.55' 454.62' 464.05' 480.20' 465.49' 473.44' 451.70 481.70'12'-0"(E) CONCRETE ROOF TILES (N) ASPHALT SHINGLES TO COMPLIMENT (E) CONCRETE ROOF TILES Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings.Rev.:001002003004005006Description :Date :Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098 MR. + MRS. YOUSEF SHAMIEH1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA. 94010Title :Project :Date :01.07.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_01Job No. :Owner :APN#: 025-302-050Contractor :PLANNING SETZoning: RESIDENTIALBUILDING SETMR. + MRS. YOUSEF1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA. 94010 one DESIGN PLANNING form Existing + Proposed ElevationsSee Details A3.1 A3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 1EXISTING REAR ELEVATION A3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 2PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM 05.03.202205.11.2022 FRONT YARD REAR YARD(E) BLACK (E) BLACK (E) BLACK D.S.(E) LOT LINE(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF) 8'-6"TOP PLATE 8'-4 1/2"RIDGE AVG. T.O.C. FIN. FLOOR DHE 20'-8 5/8"455.55' 454.62' 464.05' 472.41' 451.70 30'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMIT481.70' FRONT YARD REAR YARD FIN. FLOOR 8'-6"TOP PLATE AVG. T.O.C. DHE (E) (N) ADDITIONEXISTING (E)(E)(E) (N)(N) (E) D.S. 1'-5 1/4"RIDGE 28'-6"FIN. FLOOR 7'-11 1/2"TOP PLATE 6'-9 1/4"(N) (N) 2ND FLOOR (PRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORS) (PRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORS) (PRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORS) (PRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORS) (N) D.S.30'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMIT (E) LOT LINE(E) RETAINING WALL WOOD (REMOVED) ADDING CONCRETE RETAINING WALL (S.S.D.)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)(N) CONC RETAINING WALL W/ STUCCO FINISH (S.S.D.) (N) PRIVACY LATTICE INSTALLED BY OWNER ON EXISTING FENCE 1'-0"(N) SCULPTURAL TREES 464.05' 455.55' 454.62' 480.20' 465.49' 473.44' 481.70' 451.70 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings.Rev.:001002003004005006Description :Date :Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098 MR. + MRS. YOUSEF SHAMIEH1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA. 94010Title :Project :Date :01.07.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_01Job No. :Owner :APN#: 025-302-050Contractor :PLANNING SETZoning: RESIDENTIALBUILDING SETMR. + MRS. YOUSEF1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA. 94010 one DESIGN PLANNING form Existing + Proposed ElevationsSee Details A3.2 A3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 1EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION A3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 2PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION 1 1 1 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM 05.03.202205.11.2022 FRONT YARDREAR YARD D.S. (E) A.C. 4X14 VENT 4X14 VENT GAS ELEC. (E) BLACK (E) BLACK (E) (E)(E) LOT LINE(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF) 8'-6"TOP PLATE 8'-4 1/2"RIDGE AVG. T.O.C. FIN. FLOOR DHE20'-8 5/8"455.55' 454.62' 464.05' 472.41' 451.7030'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMIT 481.70' FRONT YARDREAR YARD FIN. FLOOR 8'-6"TOP PLATE 1'-5 1/4"RIDGE AVG. T.O.C. DHE28'-6"(N) (E) ADDITION EXISTING (E)(E) (E) CASEMENTS OR SLIDERS TO MATCH (E) MARVIN (TYP.)1'-0"TV LINEAR GAS F/U (E) A.C. 4X14 VENT 4X14 VENT GAS ELEC. (E) (E) (N) STUCCO TO MATCH (E) STUCCO (TYP.) (N) ASPHALT SHINGLES TO COMPLIMENT (E) CONCRETE ROOF TILES(E) LOT LINE(E) RETAINING WALL WOOD (REMOVED) ADDING CONCRETE RETAINING WALL (S.S.D.)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)(N) CONC RETAINING WALL W/ STUCCO FINISH (S.S.D.) (N) PRIVACY LATTICE INSTALLED BY OWNER ON EXISTING FENCE1'-0"(E) GRADE (TYPICAL) (N) FIN. FLOOR 7'-11 1/2"TOP PLATE 6'-9 1/4"VIF (N) TEMP. (N) (N) 22'-10 1/2"12'-0" (N) D.S. 2ND FLOOR 3'-6"(N)30'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMIT (N) SCULPTURAL TREES 464.05' 455.55' 454.62' 480.20' 465.49' 473.44' 481.70' 451.70 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings.Rev.:001002003004005006Description :Date :Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098 MR. + MRS. YOUSEF SHAMIEH1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA. 94010Title :Project :Date :01.07.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_01Job No. :Owner :APN#: 025-302-050Contractor :PLANNING SETZoning: RESIDENTIALBUILDING SETMR. + MRS. YOUSEF1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA. 94010 one DESIGN PLANNING form Existing + Proposed ElevationsSee Details A3.3 A3.3Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 1EXISTING LEFT ELEVATION A3.3Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" 2PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM 05.03.202205.11.2022 City of Burlingame Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2758 Summit Drive Meeting Date: June 27, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for first and second story additions to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Architect: Raymond Frank, Raymond Frank Architecture APN: 027-221-230 Property Owners: Charles Chiparo and Laura Rupenian Lot Area: 16,275 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition would not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing two-story single-unit dwelling with an attached garage. There is a 20% downward slope on the lot from the front to the rear property line. Access to the house and garage from Summit Drive is across a paved footbridge and a bridge driveway. The house is one story when viewed from the street and two stories with a deck at each level when viewed from the rear yard. The City limit boundary shared with Hillsborough runs along the left side property line. The subject property is located within the Hillside Overlay Zone. Code Section 25.20.040 states that hillside development shall be designed to preserve existing distant views. View preservation shall be limited to obstruction of distant views to San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Airport, and Mills Canyon from primary indoor living areas (living rooms and family rooms) (Code Section 25.20.040.B). Planning staff would note that the Special Permit requirement, limit of 75 SF, and increased side setbacks (Code Section 25.10.030 – Table 25.10-2) for second floor decks/balconies do not apply to lots located within the Hillside Overlay in order to accommodate the ability to capture views from these properties and because many of these lots are sloped so that a deck/balcony is the primary way to provide a level area in the rear yard. The proposed project includes replacing all existing windows in their existing locations, adding a new exterior material to the entire structure, building a single-story lower level addition and deck at the rear of the house, and building deck additions on the two upper stories. The single-story lower level addition of living space totals 645 SF and the deck at this level is 225 SF. The upper level deck additions measure 338 SF and 388 SF. With the proposed additions, the total floor area would increase from 2,710 SF (0.17 FAR) to 3,355 SF (0.21 FAR) where 6,308 SF (0.39 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemptions, open deck exemptions, and mechanical room exemptions). The total number of bedrooms would increase from four to five. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required for a five-bedroom house. The existing attached garage provides the required covered parking space (19'-6” x 22' clear interior dimensions, where 18’ x 18’ is required) and there is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The existing landscaping on site is proposed to remain. There are multiple protected size trees on the property, but none are proposed to be removed or trimmed with the proposed project. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020,C,1,b.); and  Hillside Area Construction Permit for first and second story additions to an existing single-unit dwelling Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2758 Summit Drive -2- (C.S. 25.70.020.A.). 2758 Summit Drive Lot Area: 16,275 SF Plans date stamped: June 20, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 22'-0” 22'-0” No change No change 15'-0" 20'-0” Side (left): (right): 11'-0” 10'-0” 33'-0” (to addition) 16'-8” (to addition) 7'-0” 7'-0” Rear (lower level): (upper level 1): (upper level 2): 148'-0” 148'-0” 148'-0” 126'-4” 126'-4” 129'-4” 15'-0” 20'-0” 20'-0” Lot Coverage: 1,624 SF 10% 2,046 SF 14% 6,510 SF 40% FAR: 2,710 SF 0.17 FAR 3,355 SF 0.21 FAR 6,308 SF 1 0.39 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 5 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (19’-6" x 22’-0”) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') No change 2 covered (18' x 18') 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Height: 15'-5” No change 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.10.055 ¹ (0.32 x 16,275 SF) + 1100 SF = 6,308 SF (0.39 FAR). Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: Plans note some aluminum clad wood and some black vinyl. No trim noted. • Doors: Plans note fiberglass doors at the rear elevation. Existing garage doors and front door to remain. • Siding: Hardie board architectural panel. • Roof: Built-up flat roof. • Other: Aluminum pipe railings. Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review study meeting on June 13, 2022, the Commission asked for several clarifications to be made on the plans and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter, dated June 17, 2022, and revised plans, dated stamped June 20, Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2758 Summit Drive -3- 2022, to address the Planning Commission’s comments. Please refer to the June 13, 2022 Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission questions and comments. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The proposed addition to an existing single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25; the proposed architectural style of the project respects the existing patterns in the neighborhood by maintaining flat roofs and matching the existing plate heights below nine feet; the proposed style is consistent throughout each floor with a dark window material and no trim and an aluminum pipe railing at the rear decks to match the existing railing at the front of the dwelling and to provide an open feeling and reduce the massing of the decks; and that these materials complement the contemporary architectural style of the house and blend with the existing character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio, height and declining height envelope requirements and the proposed deck at the main living level will have landscape planters for screening at the side closest to the right property line. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Any decision to approve a Hillside Area Construction Permit application pursuant to Code Section 25.20.040 and Chapter 25.70 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2758 Summit Drive -4- 1. The project is consistent with the purpose of the Hillside Overlay Zone. 2. The project complies with the development standards found in Section 25.20.040.B through I. 3. The placement of the proposed construction does not have a substantial impact on adjacent properties or on the character of the immediate neighborhood. Suggested Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: 1. That the proposed additions create enclosed living area only at the lowest level and the upper levels are open decks that do not block protected views from neighboring properties. 2. That the additions do not increase the existing highest roof ridge for the single-unit dwelling. 3. That the existing trees in the rear yard will remain with construction and continue to enhance the open spaces in the canyon that are visible from the subject site and from surrounding properties. For these reasons, the project does not obstruct distant views from habitable areas with nearby dwelling units and therefore the project may be found to be compatible with Hillside Area Construction Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped June 20, 2022, sheets A000 through A206; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2758 Summit Drive -5- requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff would inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Raymond Frank, applicant Attachments: June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated June 17, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Emails from Neighbor at 2756 Summit Drive, dated June 8 and June 9, 2022 Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 17, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, June 13, 2022 c.2758 Summit Drive, R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Raymond Frank, applicant and architect; Charles Chiparo and Laure Rupenian, property owners ) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2758 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2758 Summit Dr - Attachments 2758 Summit Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he spoke with both the property owner of this project and the neighbor to the right, who provide him access to the home to see the back of the subject property from her kitchen window. Commissioner Tse noted that she contacted and left a message for the neighbor, Faith Chan, and unfortunately was not able to coordinate a visit in time . Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Raymond Frank, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Eugene and Sylvia Chinn, 2751 Summit Drive: We live directly across the street from 2758 Summit Drive and have reviewed the renderings and plans for the proposed addition. Our house is the only one that has a direct view of 2758 Summit Drive. We have lived here for 43 years and the project improves the neighborhood, as such, we endorse the project. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a very interesting house. Please revisit placement of doors and windows as some of them seem not to align with the windows on the other levels of the home, especially on the rear elevation . Consider using a consistent mullion size. There seem to be a lot of different mullion sizes proposed which is distracting and makes it a less solid design. >The site plan shows a tree next to a gas meter. I didn ’t see that at the site, but there is a big tree at the corner that looks to be at the neighbor ’s property. Please look to see if that is correct and adjust the plans accordingly. >I can certainly appreciate the comments from the neighbor directly to the right as you are facing the house. It is a little bit downhill. They are also dealing with a remodel of the house on the other side of them that we have looked at not that long ago. So they definitely are going to have some change, but the reality is that the protected views from that property are out the back side towards the canyon. I would be more concerned about blocking views from her deck and views of the canyon. I can appreciate that they have the side window open for this long, but I also can appreciate that the neighbor has the right to build and they are not building something large and oversized. That really is a very modest home for what is a Page 1City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes fairly sizable site. They are well under the FAR with this little addition that is going to be below the neighboring house. As much as I sympathize with the neighbor, I feel that this project does it ’s best to minimize and yet was able to take advantage of their lot and their ability to build. So, I can support the project and can see it going forward. >It is very modest. I did notice how close that home is to the neighbor on the right. What the designer has proposed to block the view would be helpful. I absolutely love the current front railing, the proposed glass is fine but it has an industrial look. It is not a deal breaker for me but the existing front has this very nice warm feel. It was just a very interesting railing. I can see this move forward as well. Just need to tighten up what we have discussed about aligning the windows and making the moldings uniform. >I had some concerns about the sizes of the decks and that they all extend out the same distance. I was at the neighbor ’s house to the right as you face the property, her kitchen window certainly looks out to what is there now. But what has more impact for that neighbor is behind the kitchen on that same side is a bedroom. You’ve got a pretty good size deck coming off the living and dining areas potentially where you are doing your entertaining. I know in the hillside area we are not really limiting the size of the decks as we are in the lower areas of the city, but it might even look better if the upper deck will step back a little bit and same with the lower deck. It would be helpful to see an outline of the house next door to see the relationship distance between the two properties and show where the windows are located just so we get a better feel of how close we are putting people together up there. Overall, I like the project. I just wish it is a little bit farther away from the other house. Stepping the decks back might help but it might be something to look at. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame June 17, 2022 City of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 2758 Summit Drive To Whom It May Concern: Herein, please find the response to the comments from the June 13, 2022, Planning Commission hearing. 1. Please work with the proposed windows and doors to make sure they all have the same width trim, the same width muntins or frames, and are centered where possible. The door and window frames at the rear elevation have been adjusted to be more consistent in their width. 2. Please revise the plans to accurately depict the tree that is shown near the gas meter but may actually be on the neighbor’s property. The referenced tree has been relocated to be shown within the neighbor’s property. 3. Have you considered increasing the setback to the decks on the right side, closest to the neighbor at that side? Have you considered stepping on of the decks back so they have two different rear setbacks? We have set back the main level deck by 3’ from the rear, however the side of the deck remains aligned with the decks below. The side of the decks are more than 18’ from the windows of the neighboring house and are well within the allowed side setbacks for the lot. Additionally, the proposed decks are more than 23’ from the decks of the neighboring house. Additionally, in response to another comment, we have decided to keep the existing pipe railing design and utilize that railing type at the new decks at the back. I trust this information has been sufficient to satisfy your questions and concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any further questions or require any further information. Sincerely, Raymond D. Frank Jr. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for first and second story additions to an existing single- unit dwelling at 2758 Summit Drive, Zone R-1, Charles Chiparo and Laura Rupenian, property owners, APN: 027 -221 -230; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 27, 2022, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301(e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of June, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2758Summit Drive Effective July 7, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped June 20, 2022, sheets A000 through A206; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2758Summit Drive Effective July 7, 2022 certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff would inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. SHEETDATEDRAWN BY:REVISIONSRAYMOND D. FRANK JR, R.A.PHONE: 650.387.8307RAYMOND@FRANKARCHITECTURE.COMALTHOUGH EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PREPARATION OF THESE FORMS AND PLANS TO AVOID MISTAKES, THE MAKER CANNOT GUARANTEE AGAINST HUMAN ERROR, NEITHER THIS PLAN, NOR ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAN, SHALL BE COPIED, (UNDER FS HR5490 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING ACT OR ITS EQUAL). THE CONTRACTOR, BUILDER AND/ OR OWNER SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL APPLICABLE CODES, LAWS, SIZES, DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, QUANTITIES, FINISHES, ETC, AND SHALL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. THE CONTRACTOR IS URGED TO COMPLETELY REVIEW ALL INTENDED WORK WITH THE OWNER AS THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE ORDERS APPROVED OR ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER BASED ON "NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS" OR "MISTAKE ON THE PLANS". FURTHER, THE OWNER AND/ OR CONTRACTORS ALSO AGREE TO COVER ANY AND ALL LEGAL FEES, EXPENSES, AWARDS, ETC. ARISING FROM ANY PROBLEMS OR LITIGATIONS. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE PRIMA-FASCIA EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS.RAYMONDFRANKA R C H I T E C TA00111/22/21RDFREMODEL & ADDITION TO RESIDENCERENDERINGS2758 SUMMIT DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 9401013D PEPRSECTIVE @ ADDITION3GROUND LEVEL PERSPECTIVE 22GROUND LEVEL PERSPECTIVE 143D PERSPECTIVE @ FRONT EXISTING FIRSTFLOOR LEVEL0"EXISTING ROOFLEVEL11' -6"EXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD SHINGLE SIDINGCOLOR: BEIGEEXISTING VINYL WINDOWWHITE TRIM (TYP.)EXISTING FIRSTFLOOR0"EXISTING ROOF11' -6"HARDIE BOARD ARCHITECTURAL PANEL & BELLY BANDCOLOR: COBBLESTONEEXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD FASCIA & TRIM TO REMAINMILGARD V250 VINYL WINDOWBLACK FRAME (TYP.) EXISTING WOOD ENTRY STEPS TO REMAINEXISTING ENTRY DOORS TO REMAIN-1' - 11 1/2"14' - 2 1/2"ATOC 208.475T.O.ROOFSHEETDATEDRAWN BY:REVISIONSRAYMOND D. FRANK JR, R.A.PHONE: 650.387.8307RAYMOND@FRANKARCHITECTURE.COMALTHOUGH EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PREPARATION OF THESE FORMS AND PLANS TO AVOID MISTAKES, THE MAKER CANNOT GUARANTEE AGAINST HUMAN ERROR, NEITHER THIS PLAN, NOR ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAN, SHALL BE COPIED, (UNDER FS HR5490 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING ACT OR ITS EQUAL). THE CONTRACTOR, BUILDER AND/ OR OWNER SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL APPLICABLE CODES, LAWS, SIZES, DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, QUANTITIES, FINISHES, ETC, AND SHALL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. THE CONTRACTOR IS URGED TO COMPLETELY REVIEW ALL INTENDED WORK WITH THE OWNER AS THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE ORDERS APPROVED OR ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER BASED ON "NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS" OR "MISTAKE ON THE PLANS". FURTHER, THE OWNER AND/ OR CONTRACTORS ALSO AGREE TO COVER ANY AND ALL LEGAL FEES, EXPENSES, AWARDS, ETC. ARISING FROM ANY PROBLEMS OR LITIGATIONS. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE PRIMA-FASCIA EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS.RAYMONDFRANKA R C H I T E C TA20111/22/21RDFREMODEL & ADDITION TO RESIDENCEFRONT ELEVATION2758 SUMMIT DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION EXISTING FIRSTFLOOR LEVEL0"EXISTING ROOFLEVEL11' -6"EXISTING LOWERLEVEL-9' -0"EXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD SHINGLE SIDINGCOLOR: BEIGEEXISTING VINYL WINDOWWHITE TRIM (TYP.)HORIZONTAL PIPE RAILING (TYP.)EXISTING FIRSTFLOOR0"EXISTING ROOF11' -6"EXISTING LOWERLEVEL 1-9' -0"PROPOSEDLOWER LEVEL 2-18' -0"EXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD FASCIA & TRIM TO REMAINMILGARD V250 VINYL WINDOWBLACK FRAME (TYP.) ALUMINUM PIPE RAILING (TYP.)NEW FIBERGLASS EXTERIOR DOOR, BLACK FRAME (TYP.)MILGARD V250 VINYL WINDOWBLACK TRIM (TYP.) STAINED WOOD PLANK SIDING SIDE PROPERTY LINESIDE PROPERTY LINEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE12' - 0"POINT OF DEPARTUREPOINT OF DEPARTURE12' - 0"7' - 6"-25' - 7"-23' - 4"HARDIE BOARD ARCHITECTURAL PANEL & BELLY BANDCOLOR: COBBLESTONE7' - 6"DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE9' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"PLATE HEIGHTPLATE HEIGHTPLATE HEIGHTSHEETDATEDRAWN BY:REVISIONSRAYMOND D. FRANK JR, R.A.PHONE: 650.387.8307RAYMOND@FRANKARCHITECTURE.COMALTHOUGH EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PREPARATION OF THESE FORMS AND PLANS TO AVOID MISTAKES, THE MAKER CANNOT GUARANTEE AGAINST HUMAN ERROR, NEITHER THIS PLAN, NOR ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAN, SHALL BE COPIED, (UNDER FS HR5490 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING ACT OR ITS EQUAL). THE CONTRACTOR, BUILDER AND/ OR OWNER SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL APPLICABLE CODES, LAWS, SIZES, DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, QUANTITIES, FINISHES, ETC, AND SHALL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. THE CONTRACTOR IS URGED TO COMPLETELY REVIEW ALL INTENDED WORK WITH THE OWNER AS THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE ORDERS APPROVED OR ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER BASED ON "NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS" OR "MISTAKE ON THE PLANS". FURTHER, THE OWNER AND/ OR CONTRACTORS ALSO AGREE TO COVER ANY AND ALL LEGAL FEES, EXPENSES, AWARDS, ETC. ARISING FROM ANY PROBLEMS OR LITIGATIONS. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE PRIMA-FASCIA EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS.RAYMONDFRANKA R C H I T E C TA20211/22/21RDFREMODEL & ADDITION TO RESIDENCEREAR ELEVATION2758 SUMMIT DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING REAR ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION EXISTING FIRSTFLOOR0"EXISTING ROOF11' -6"EXISTING LOWERLEVEL 1-9' -0"PROPOSEDLOWER LEVEL 2-18' -0"EXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD FASCIA & TRIM TO REMAINHARDIE BOARD ARCHITECTURAL PANEL & BELLY BANDCOLOR: COBBLESTONEALUMINUM PIPE RAILINGHARDIE BOARD ARCHITECTURAL PANELCOLOR: COBBLESTONEMILGARD V250 VINYL WINDOWBLACK FRAME (TYP.) STAINED WOOD PLANK SIDING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING FIRSTFLOOR LEVEL0"EXISTING ROOFLEVEL11' -6"EXISTING LOWERLEVEL-9' -0"EXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD SHINGLE SIDINGCOLOR: BEIGEEXISTING VINYL WINDOWWHITE TRIM (TYP.)HORIZONTAL PIPE RAILING (TYP.)PROPERTY LINESHEETDATEDRAWN BY:REVISIONSRAYMOND D. FRANK JR, R.A.PHONE: 650.387.8307RAYMOND@FRANKARCHITECTURE.COMALTHOUGH EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PREPARATION OF THESE FORMS AND PLANS TO AVOID MISTAKES, THE MAKER CANNOT GUARANTEE AGAINST HUMAN ERROR, NEITHER THIS PLAN, NOR ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAN, SHALL BE COPIED, (UNDER FS HR5490 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING ACT OR ITS EQUAL). THE CONTRACTOR, BUILDER AND/ OR OWNER SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL APPLICABLE CODES, LAWS, SIZES, DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, QUANTITIES, FINISHES, ETC, AND SHALL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. THE CONTRACTOR IS URGED TO COMPLETELY REVIEW ALL INTENDED WORK WITH THE OWNER AS THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE ORDERS APPROVED OR ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER BASED ON "NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS" OR "MISTAKE ON THE PLANS". FURTHER, THE OWNER AND/ OR CONTRACTORS ALSO AGREE TO COVER ANY AND ALL LEGAL FEES, EXPENSES, AWARDS, ETC. ARISING FROM ANY PROBLEMS OR LITIGATIONS. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE PRIMA-FASCIA EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS.RAYMONDFRANKA R C H I T E C TA20303/07/22RDFREMODEL & ADDITION TO RESIDENCELEFT SIDE ELEVATION2758 SUMMIT DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED LEFT SIDE ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING LEFT SIDE ELEVATION EXISTING FIRSTFLOOR LEVEL0"EXISTING ROOFLEVEL11' -6"EXISTING LOWERLEVEL-9' -0"EXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD SHINGLE SIDINGCOLOR: BEIGEEXISTING VINYL WINDOWWHITE TRIM (TYP.)HORIZONTAL PIPE RAILING (TYP.)PROPERTY LINEEXISTING FIRSTFLOOR0"EXISTING ROOF11' -6"EXISTING LOWERLEVEL 1-9' -0"PROPOSEDLOWER LEVEL 2-18' -0"ALUMINUM PIPE RAILING (TYP.)EXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD FASCIA & TRIM TO REMAINHARDIE BOARD ARCHITECTURAL PANEL & BELLY BANDCOLOR: COBBLESTONEMILGARD V250 VINYL WINDOWBLACK FRAME (TYP.) MILGARD V250 VINYL WINDOWBLACK PAINTED TRIM (TYP.) PROPERTY LINESHEETDATEDRAWN BY:REVISIONSRAYMOND D. FRANK JR, R.A.PHONE: 650.387.8307RAYMOND@FRANKARCHITECTURE.COMALTHOUGH EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PREPARATION OF THESE FORMS AND PLANS TO AVOID MISTAKES, THE MAKER CANNOT GUARANTEE AGAINST HUMAN ERROR, NEITHER THIS PLAN, NOR ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAN, SHALL BE COPIED, (UNDER FS HR5490 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING ACT OR ITS EQUAL). THE CONTRACTOR, BUILDER AND/ OR OWNER SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL APPLICABLE CODES, LAWS, SIZES, DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, QUANTITIES, FINISHES, ETC, AND SHALL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. THE CONTRACTOR IS URGED TO COMPLETELY REVIEW ALL INTENDED WORK WITH THE OWNER AS THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE ORDERS APPROVED OR ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER BASED ON "NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS" OR "MISTAKE ON THE PLANS". FURTHER, THE OWNER AND/ OR CONTRACTORS ALSO AGREE TO COVER ANY AND ALL LEGAL FEES, EXPENSES, AWARDS, ETC. ARISING FROM ANY PROBLEMS OR LITIGATIONS. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE PRIMA-FASCIA EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS.RAYMONDFRANKA R C H I T E C TA20403/07/22RDFREMODEL & ADDITION TO RESIDENCERIGHT SIDE ELEVATION2758 SUMMIT DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES:1.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO INSPECT THE JOB SITE AND BECOME AWARE OF GRADES, UTILITIES AND ANY OTHER EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION. CONFIRM BY FIELD MEASUREMENT THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE AREA OF WORK RIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. MAKE EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS AND LOCATE EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SUFFICENTILY AHEAD OF SCHEDULE TO PERMIT REVISIONS TO PLANS (IF REQUIRED) DUE TO ACTUAL LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES OR BOULDERS.2.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, WATER AND ELECTRICAL POINTS OF CONNECTION AND PLAN NOTES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY, IN CASE OF DISCREPANCIES OR QUESTIONS AS TO THE SCOPE OF WORK WHICH MAY ARISE IN THE FIELD TO NOTIFY THE BLAIR DESIGN GROUP FOR CLARIFICATION.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE MINOR SITE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AS NECESSARY. THE CONTRACTOR IS REPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULTS OF ANY ERRORS, DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS PRIOR TO BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORK.4.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO EXISTING ELEMENTS TO REMAIN CAUSED BY THEMSELVES OR THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS OR ANYONE UNDER THEIR DIRECTION, AND SHALL PAY FOR ALL COSTS OF REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR.5.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PREFORM ALL CLEAN UP ANY AND ALL TRASH, DEBRIS, SPILLS, ETC. CREATED BY THEMSELVES OR SUBCONTRACTORS. REMOVE ANY DEMOLITION ITEMS SATISFACTORY DISPOSAL OF VEGETATION NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PLANTING PLAN INCLUDING BOULDERS IN AREA TO BE CLEARED SHALL BE CUT OFF AT GRADE OR REMOVED TO 6" BELOW GRADE.6.ALL WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS TO CONFORM TO LOCAL GOVERING CODES, ORDINANCES AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS.7.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED PERMITS.8.SUB GRADE UNDER PAVED AREAS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90%.9.ALL LANDSCAPE/ FINISH GRADE WITHIN 10 FEET OF STRUCTURE AREAS SHALL DRAIN A MINIMUM 2% AWAY FROM STRUCTURES FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES..10.THE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS TO ANY STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS PROHIBITED. NO SOLID WASTE, PETROLEUM BY PRODUCTS, SOIL PARTICULATE, CONSTRUCTION WASTE MATERIALS, OR WASTEWATER GENERATED ON CONSTRUCTION SITES OR BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PLACED, CONVEYED OR DISCHARDGED INTO THE STREET, GUTTER OR STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.SUMMIT DRIVE(50' WIDTH)85.46'201.89'233.00'20.61'45.0'NON-FRUIT & NON-NUT BEARING TREE (TYP)NOTE:1. NO TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. 2. NO PROTECTED TREES WITHIN 5 FEET OF PROPOSED ADDITION3. NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES PROPOSED BEYOND PROPERTY LINE.4. NO HARDSCAPE OR SOFTSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION.5. NO GRADING TO EXISTING SITE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.(E) LANDSCAPE TREES (TYP.)25' - 8 1/2"9' - 10 1/2"14' - 3"EXISTING SIDEWALK20' SETBACK7' SIDE SETBACK7' SIDE SETBACK15' FRONT SETBACK(EL. 205.6) -4' - 11 1/2"(EL. 210.8) 6 1/2"DATUM 0'-0" (EL. 210.6) = EXISTING FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION-6' - 5"-3' - 9"31' - 11 1/2"11' - 7"EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCENEW ADDITIONATOC = EL. 208.4752756 SUMMIT DRIVE20 HOWLAND HILL LANEDECKDECKBALCONY-44' - 10"-40' - 10"15' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 3 1/2"-25' - 7"-23' - 6 1/2"PODPODOHEOHEOHEDOWNSPOUT (DS) (TYP.)(E) WATER METER(E) GAS METEROHEEXISTING CLEAN OUT4' - 0"SHEETDATEDRAWN BY:REVISIONSRAYMOND D. FRANK JR, R.A.PHONE: 650.387.8307RAYMOND@FRANKARCHITECTURE.COMALTHOUGH EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PREPARATION OF THESE FORMS AND PLANS TO AVOID MISTAKES, THE MAKER CANNOT GUARANTEE AGAINST HUMAN ERROR, NEITHER THIS PLAN, NOR ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAN, SHALL BE COPIED, (UNDER FS HR5490 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING ACT OR ITS EQUAL). THE CONTRACTOR, BUILDER AND/ OR OWNER SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL APPLICABLE CODES, LAWS, SIZES, DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, QUANTITIES, FINISHES, ETC, AND SHALL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. THE CONTRACTOR IS URGED TO COMPLETELY REVIEW ALL INTENDED WORK WITH THE OWNER AS THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE ORDERS APPROVED OR ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER BASED ON "NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS" OR "MISTAKE ON THE PLANS". FURTHER, THE OWNER AND/ OR CONTRACTORS ALSO AGREE TO COVER ANY AND ALL LEGAL FEES, EXPENSES, AWARDS, ETC. ARISING FROM ANY PROBLEMS OR LITIGATIONS. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE PRIMA-FASCIA EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS.RAYMONDFRANKA R C H I T E C TA1003/3/22RDFREMODEL & ADDITION TO RESIDENCESITE PLAN2758 SUMMIT DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLAN City of Burlingame Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2313 Ray Drive Meeting Date: June 27, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Architect: Jeff Alan Gard APN: 025-182-400 Property Owners: Ronan McConnell and Michele McKenna Lot Area: 11,545 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing one-story single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. The lot is relatively flat until the rear third, where it slopes downward approximately 20’-0” to Mills Creek. The applicant is proposing an addition to the main floor at the rear of the house, converting the crawl space below the main floor into living area, and expanding this living area to align with the addition above. With the proposed addition, the house would be two stories at the rear. The proposed house would have a total floor area of 2,940 SF (0.25 FAR) where 4,794 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The subject property is located within the Hillside Overlay Zone. C ode Section 25.20.040 states that hillside development shall be designed to preserve existing distant views. View preservation shall be limited to obstruction of distant views to San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Airport, and Mills Canyon from primary indoor living areas (living rooms and family rooms) (Code Section 25.20.040.B). The existing house contains three bedrooms and with this project, there is no increase in the number of bedrooms (room on Lower Level does not qualify as a bedroom since it is open to the stairway). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the attached garage (15’-1” x 17’-2” clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. The existing attached garage has a nonconforming interior depth of 17’-2” where 18’-0” is the minimum required. However, because there is no increase to the number of existing bedrooms (three) and no changes are proposed to the garage, the garage does not need to be made to conform. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020.C.1.b.); and  Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.70.020.A.). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2313 Ray Drive 2 2313 Ray Drive Lot Area: 11,545 SF Plans date stamped: May 20, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 19’-6” n/a no change n/a 15’-0” or block average 20’-0” or block average Side (left): (right): 5’-4” 1 6’-5” 2 7’-0” no change 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 76’-7” n/a 58’-2” 60’-2” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,798 SF 15.6% 2,237 SF 19.4% 4,618 SF 40% FAR: 1,798 SF 0.16 FAR 2,940 SF 0.25 FAR 4,794 SF 3 0.42 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 no change --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (15’-1” x 17’-2” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') no change 2 covered (18' x 18' for existing conditions) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Height: 17’-3” 14’-4” (top of ridge of addition) 30'-0" DH Envelope: not applicable complies Special Permit (C.S. 25.10.035.2) ¹ Nonconforming left side setback. 2 Nonconforming right side setback. 3 (0.32 x 11,545 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,794 SF (0.42 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:  Windows: fiberglass clad wood  Doors: wood entry door and wood garage door  Siding: cement plaster and cedar shingles  Roof: asphalt shingles  Other: brick garden wall, wood steps Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2313 Ray Drive 3 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Any decision to approve a Hillside Area Construction Permit application pursuant to Code Section 25.20.040 and Chapter 25.70 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the purpose of the Hillside Overlay Zone. 2. The project complies with the development standards found in Section 25.20.040.B through I. 3. The placement of the proposed construction does not have a substantial impact on adjacent properties or on the character of the immediate neighborhood. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Jeff Alan Gard, applicant and architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Hillside Area Construction Permit Application Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 17, 2022 Area Map City of Burlingame Š Community Development Department Š 501 Primrose Road Š (650) 558-7250 Š planningdept@burlingame.org Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to post plans submitted with this application on the City’s website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. _________ (Initials of Architect/Designer) Project Application - Planning Division Type of Application: Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional Use/Minor Use Permit Design Review Hillside Area Construction Permit Minor Modification Special Permit Variance Other Project Address: Assessor’s Parcel #: Zoning: Project Description: Applicant Property Owner Name: Name: Address: Address: Phone: Phone: E-mail: E-mail: Architect/Designer Name: Address: Phone: E-mail: Burlingame Business License #: * Architect/Designer must have a valid Burlingame Business License. Applicant: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant’s signature: Date: Property Owner: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Division. Property owner’s signature: Date: Date Application Received (staff only): 2313 Ray Drive Jeff Alan Gard 415.412.8369 jag@jagarchitecture.com Jeff Alan Gard 415.412.8369 jag@jagarchitecture.com Ronan McConnell, Michele McKenna 415.812.0641 mcconnell.electric@gmail.com 951720 2/2/22 2/2/22 025182400 R1 1317 Grant Ave San Francisco, CA 94133 1317 Grant Ave San Francisco, CA 94133 ✔✔ 2313 Ray Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 The proposed rear yard addi-on enlarges the primary bedroom by adding a walk in closet and full bath at the living level of the home. In addi-on a por-on of the slope below the proposed and a por-on of the exis-ng crawl space of the home will be excavated to create a family room and full bath. Text City of Burlingame Š Community Development Department Š 501 Primrose Road Š P (650) 558-7250 Š www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Hillside Area Construction Permit Application The Director or Planning Commission (if appealed) is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Code Section 25.70.030). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Director in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. A. Explain how the proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the Hillside Overlay Zone, include the following: 1. Protect public health and safety by minimizing hazards, including soil erosion and fire danger associated with development on hillsides; 2. Preserve and enhance the City’s scenic character, including its natural hillsides and views of San Francisco Bay; 3. Respect natural features in the design and construction of hillside development; and 4. Design hillside development to be sensitive to existing terrain, distant views, and significant natural landforms and features. 1. The proposed Back garden extension and excava6on is in a developed neighborhood area and will not impact public health, or increase fire danger. The proposed excava6ons are largely under the footprint of the exis6ng home and take advantage of the sloped por6on of the lot to add lower level story. 2. By building down into instead of adding an addi6onal story to the roof level the proposed rear yard addi6on is not visible from the street and will not increase the height of the exis6ng ridge line. 3. The proposed extension connects the main living level of the home to the exis6ng low lying flat area of the site. Small step retaining walls and raised planters knit the addi6on into the lower sloped areas. The proposed internal stair will allow for greater accessibility for maintaining the trees and grounds located along the drainage easement along the back property line. 4. The proposed rear yard addi6on is a modest extension of the exis6ng gable end form of the exis6ng home without impac6ng exis6ng distant views. The proposed addi6on seeks to improve access to the natural features of the site with low height terracing and internal stairs to leave much of the hillside undisturbed. 2313 Ray Drive 300’ noticing APN #: 025-182-400 Revisions NORTH ELEVA TIONS A 2 .1 All ideas design arrangements, plans, concepts indicated or represented by this document are the copyrighted property of Jeff Alan Gard (jag architecture) and were created , evolved, and developed excluseively for use on and in connection with this project. None of said ideas arrangements, or plans shall be used or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation whatsoever without the written permission of Jeff Alan Gard. Filing these documents with any public agency shall not be considered a publication of same. No copy, reproduction or use thereof is permissable without the written consent of JAG architecture. © JEFF ALAN GARD. ar c hit ect je f f a la n g ar d 11SHEET NUMBER NO. DESCR IPT ION 2 313 Ray Dr ive Bur lingame Calif or nia, 9 4 010 U.S.A . McConnell McKenna Residence w w w .jef f alangar d.c om T 415.495.6254 jag@jef f alangar d.c om 13 17 GRA NT AVE SAN FRA NCISCO, CA LIFOR NIA 94133 ARCHITECT CA LIC. 30906 APN 025182400 0 5 .19 .2 2 C B A 8'-3"±17'-3 1/2"14'14'30'45.00° 45.00°(E) TOP PL FIN. FL. EL. 92.85' ±5 12 (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF (E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH (E) CEDAR SHINGLES(E) BRICK GARDEN WALL (E) RIDGE 90.7 AVG TOP OF CURBPAINTED WOOD GARAGE DOOR (E) PAINTED WOOD ENTRY DOOR (E) WOOD CLAD W/ PULTRUDED FIBERGLASS (E) CHIMNEY CAP & PROFILE (E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH 81.75 AVG EAST ELEV DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE (E) RIDGE ± 108' 85.6 AVG EAST ELEV DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 8'-3" (E) TOP PL±17'-3 1/2"12'7'-6"30'12'7'-6"8' (N) TOP PL@ ADDITION4'-2 1/2"2'-4"45.00° 45.00°±11.57 sq ftFIN. FL. EL. 92.85' ±5 12 (E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH (E) BRICK GARDEN WALL (E) TOP PL (E) RIDGE (E) CHIMNEY CAP & PROFILE (E) (E) (E)(E) (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF (E) CEDAR SHINGLESPAINTED WOOD GARAGE DOOR (E) PAINTED WOOD ENTRY DOOR (E) WOOD CLAD W/ PULTRUDED FIBERGLASS (E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH 90.7 AVG TOP OF CURB± 108' 81.75 AVG EAST ELEV DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 85.6 AVG EAST ELEV DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPETOP PLADDITION(E) EGRESS WINDOW 1 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) North Elevation 2 1/4" = 1'-0" Proposed North Elevation NO VISIBLE CHANGES NO VISIBLE CHANGES Revisions SOUT H ELEVA TIONS A 2 .2 All ideas design arrangements, plans, concepts indicated or represented by this document are the copyrighted property of Jeff Alan Gard (jag architecture) and were created , evolved, and developed excluseively for use on and in connection with this project. None of said ideas arrangements, or plans shall be used or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation whatsoever without the written permission of Jeff Alan Gard. Filing these documents with any public agency shall not be considered a publication of same. No copy, reproduction or use thereof is permissable without the written consent of JAG architecture. © JEFF ALAN GARD. ar c hit ect je f f a la n g ar d 12SHEET NUMBER NO. DESCR IPT ION 2 313 Ray Dr ive Bur lingame Calif or nia, 9 4 010 U.S.A . McConnell McKenna Residence w w w .jef f alangar d.c om T 415.495.6254 jag@jef f alangar d.c om 13 17 GRA NT AVE SAN FRA NCISCO, CA LIFOR NIA 94133 ARCHITECT CA LIC. 30906 APN 025182400 0 5 .19 .2 2 A 27'-6"16'-7 3/4"8'-3"10'4'2'-11"±17'-3 1/2"12'7'-6"8' TOP PL@ ADDITION12'8'-10 1/2" PLATE HT.7'-6"±2'-11"1'30'15'-7 3/4" ADDITION 45.00° (E) TOP PL FIN. FL. EL. 92.85' ±5 12 (E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH (E) RIDGE FIN. FLR. EL 82.85' (E)(E) (N) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH TO MATCH (E) SHINGLES TO MATCH (E) ROOF (E) SLOPED GRADE (N) STEPS FOLLOWING (E) GRADE TO LOWER GARDEN LEVEL (N) RET. WALLS TO REPLACE (E) THIS AREA FOR (N) LEVEL LANDING POST AND LAGGING SYSTEM (N) RAISED PLANTING BED RETAINING WALL 36" MAX ABOVE FIN. GRADE (N) (N) (N) (N)(N) DECLINING HT. @ BACK WALL GRID LINE 3 ± 108' 81.75 AVG EAST ELEV DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 85.6 AVG EAST ELEV 90.7 AVG TOP OF CURB(N) TOP PL PROPERTY LINE @ (E) WALL PLANE BEYONDELCA 3735 E* ELCA 3743 E (N) ELCA 3735 E* ELCA 3743 E (E) RIDGE ±5 12 ELCA25472WELCATR4919 (N) SLIDING GLASS DOOR SERVES AS EGRESS FROM LOWER LEVEL ±5'-8" X 7'-0" CLR OPENING B C A B C 8'-3"14'-11 1/2"±16'-10 1/2"±17'-3 1/2"14'14'±2'-11"30'45.00° 45.00° (E) TOP PL FIN. FL. EL. 92.85' ±5 12 (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF (E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH (E) CHIMNEY 90.7 AVG TOP OF CURB(E) WOOD CLAD W/ PULTRUDED FIBERGLASS ± 108' (E) RIDGE 81.75 AVG EAST ELEV DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 85.6 AVG EAST ELEV (E) RIDGE 2 1/4" = 1'-0" Proposed South Elevation 1 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) South Elevation Revisions EA ST ELEVA TIONS A 2 .3 All ideas design arrangements, plans, concepts indicated or represented by this document are the copyrighted property of Jeff Alan Gard (jag architecture) and were created , evolved, and developed excluseively for use on and in connection with this project. None of said ideas arrangements, or plans shall be used or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation whatsoever without the written permission of Jeff Alan Gard. Filing these documents with any public agency shall not be considered a publication of same. No copy, reproduction or use thereof is permissable without the written consent of JAG architecture. © JEFF ALAN GARD. ar c hit ect je f f a la n g ar d 13SHEET NUMBER NO. DESCR IPT ION 2 313 Ray Dr ive Bur lingame Calif or nia, 9 4 010 U.S.A . McConnell McKenna Residence w w w .jef f alangar d.c om T 415.495.6254 jag@jef f alangar d.c om 13 17 GRA NT AVE SAN FRA NCISCO, CA LIFOR NIA 94133 ARCHITECT CA LIC. 30906 APN 025182400 0 5 .19 .2 2 2 1 0 8'-3"±14'-11 1/2"17'-6"±17'-3 1/2"(E) TOP PL FIN. FL. EL. 92.85' ±5 12 (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF (E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH (E) CEDAR SHINGLES ±5 12 (E) WOOD(E) WOOD CLAD W/ PULTRUDED FIBERGLASS 90.7 AVG TOP OF CURB(E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH ± 108' 2 1 03 8'-3"10'8'-10 1/2" PLATE HT.± 22'-3 3/4" RIDGE TO GRADE19'16'48'-6"±17'-3 1/2"8'3'-7 1/4"VIF ≤44"2'-9"4'-2 1/2"±11.57 sq ft(N) ROOF TO ALIGN W/ (E) BLEND (N) SHINGLES TO OLD (E) T OP PLATE ±5 12 (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF (E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH (E) CEDAR SHINGLES ±5 12 (E) RIDGE FIN. FL. EL. 82.85' (E) CHIMNEY CAPS & SPARK ARRESTOR EXT. CEMENT FINISH (E)(N) (N) (N) (N) DECAY RESISTANT WOOD STEPS SET INTO (E) SLOPE ADDITION (E)(E)(E) (E) WOOD (E) WOOD CLAD W/ PULTRUDED FIBERGLASS 90.7 AVG TOP OF CURB(E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH (N) WOOD CLAD W/ PULTRUDED FIBERGLASS MATCH (E) (N) TOP PLATE (E) RIDGE± 108' (E) EGRESS WINDOW FIN. FL. EL. 92.85' 1 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) East Elevation 2 1/4" = 1'-0" Proposed East Elevation Revisions W EST ELEVA TIONS A 2 .4 All ideas design arrangements, plans, concepts indicated or represented by this document are the copyrighted property of Jeff Alan Gard (jag architecture) and were created , evolved, and developed excluseively for use on and in connection with this project. None of said ideas arrangements, or plans shall be used or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation whatsoever without the written permission of Jeff Alan Gard. Filing these documents with any public agency shall not be considered a publication of same. No copy, reproduction or use thereof is permissable without the written consent of JAG architecture. © JEFF ALAN GARD. ar c hit ect je f f a la n g ar d 14SHEET NUMBER NO. DESCR IPT ION 2 313 Ray Dr ive Bur lingame Calif or nia, 9 4 010 U.S.A . McConnell McKenna Residence w w w .jef f alangar d.c om T 415.495.6254 jag@jef f alangar d.c om 13 17 GRA NT AVE SAN FRA NCISCO, CA LIFOR NIA 94133 ARCHITECT CA LIC. 30906 APN 025182400 0 5 .19 .2 2 0 1 32 8'-3"±17'10'48'-6"16'19'±22'-3 3/4"8'-10 1/2" TOP PL (N)2'-7 3/4"2'-9"2'8'-10 1/2"10'8'±17'-3 1/2"3'-6"7.28 sq ft ±5 12 (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF (E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH (E) CEDAR SHINGLES (N) CEDAR SHINGLES TO MATCH (E) IN ALCOVE (N) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH TO MATCH (E) (N) SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH (E) ADDITION ±5 12 FIN. FL. EL. 82.85' (E) TOP PL SHINGLES TO MATCH (E) PAINTED METAL JULIET BALCONY 4"O.C. MAX PICKET SPACING (N) EMERGENCY ESCAPE WINDOW (N) ELCA 3735 E* ELCA 3743 E (N) ELCA 3735 E* ELCA 3743 E (N) TOP PL @ ADDITION 90.7 AVG TOP OF CURB± 108' (E) RIDGE (N) TOP PL FIN. FL. EL. 92.85' 0 1 2 48'-6"16'8'-3"± 17'±17'-3 1/2"(E) TOP PL FIN. FL. EL. 92.85' ±5 12 (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF (E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH (E) CEDAR SHINGLES90.7 AVG TOP OF CURB± 108'(E) EXT. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH (E) PAINTED WOOD (E) WOOD CLAD W/ PULTRUDED FIBERGLASS (E) PAINTED WOOD 2 1/4" = 1'-0" Proposed West Elevation 1 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) West Elevation Revisions PR OPOSED ROOF PLA N A 1.6 All ideas design arrangements, plans, concepts indicated or represented by this document are the copyrighted property of Jeff Alan Gard (jag architecture) and were created , evolved, and developed excluseively for use on and in connection with this project. None of said ideas arrangements, or plans shall be used or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation whatsoever without the written permission of Jeff Alan Gard. Filing these documents with any public agency shall not be considered a publication of same. No copy, reproduction or use thereof is permissable without the written consent of JAG architecture. © JEFF ALAN GARD. ar c hit ect je f f a la n g ar d 10SHEET NUMBER NO. DESCR IPT ION 2 313 Ray Dr ive Bur lingame Calif or nia, 9 4 010 U.S.A . McConnell McKenna Residence w w w .jef f alangar d.c om T 415.495.6254 jag@jef f alangar d.c om 13 17 GRA NT AVE SAN FRA NCISCO, CA LIFOR NIA 94133 ARCHITECT CA LIC. 30906 APN 025182400 0 5 .19 .2 2 2 A3.1 2 A3.1 16'48'-6"19' 19'-11 5/8" ADDITION 1'-3"16'-7 3/4"7'-10"16'-7 1/4" 1'-3" (E)1'-3" (E) 713.59 sq ft OFMODIFIED ATTIC /300=2.38 SQ FT OF ATTIC VENTS 5 :12 SLOPE (E) CHIMNEY 5 :12 SLOPE 5 :12 SLOPE5 :12 SLOPE5 :12 SLOPE5 :12 SLOPE5 :12 SLOPE 5 :12 SLOPE5 :12 SLOPEALIGN FASCIA TO (E) 5 :12 SLOPE5 :12 SLOPE (E) ATTIC ACCESS NO ROOF DEMOLITION PROPOSED (NEW ROOF TIES INTO (E) RIDGE LINE & ROOF SLOPE 1.4SQ FT. SCREENED ATTIC VENT @ GABLE END 1.4SQ FT. SCREENED ATTIC VENT @ GABLE END 10 A B C 1 A3.1 1 A3.1 1 1/4" = 1'-0" Proposed Roof Plan Revisions SIT E PLA N PR OPOSED A 0.2 All ideas design arrangements, plans, concepts indicated or represented by this document are the copyrighted property of Jeff Alan Gard (jag architecture) and were created , evolved, and developed excluseively for use on and in connection with this project. None of said ideas arrangements, or plans shall be used or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation whatsoever without the written permission of Jeff Alan Gard. Filing these documents with any public agency shall not be considered a publication of same. No copy, reproduction or use thereof is permissable without the written consent of JAG architecture. © JEFF ALAN GARD. ar c hit ect je f f a la n g ar d 3SHEET NUMBER NO. DESCR IPT ION 2 313 Ray Dr ive Bur lingame Calif or nia, 9 4 010 U.S.A . McConnell McKenna Residence w w w .jef f alangar d.c om T 415.495.6254 jag@jef f alangar d.c om 13 17 GRA NT AVE SAN FRA NCISCO, CA LIFOR NIA 94133 ARCHITECT CA LIC. 30906 APN 025182400 0 5 .19 .2 2 6 '-3 " 1 0 '-6 " 19'-6 1/2" 1 0 '2 0 ' S E T B A C K 15' SETBACK 7'±48'-6"±16' 19' ± 10'-3" 19'6'-5 3/4"5'-4 3/4"6'-1/2"14'-9 1/4"7'1'16'-7 3/4" (E)15'-7 3/4"4'±75' EL ±75' EL R 280'NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST G S 05°12'05" E 185.67' S 15°50'30" E 157.88'N 61°12'00" E 88.23'RAY DRIVEMCKENNA & MCCONNELL10º 38' 27"L=52.00'92.2SIDEWALK ADJ RESIDENCEADJ RESIDENCEMILLS CREEKD R A I N A G E E A S E M E N T 80'90'7 0 ' 8 0 ' 8 0 ' 7 0 '80'70'90'90' (E) WATER METER (E) SHED 108 SF PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OF ADDITION FAR CHART LOT 11,545 sf 32% +1,100 sf = 4,794.4 sf MAX FAR (E) House 1798+ Shed 108 = 1,906 sf ≤ 4794.4sf FAR PROPOSED 2939.5 sf House (inc. Lower Level & garage) + 108 sf Shed= 3047.5≤ 4794.4 LOT COVERAGE MAX 40% = 4,618 sf LOT COVERAGE (E) House 1798 + 108 Shed = 1,906 sf ≤ 4618 LOT COVERAGE PROPOSED 2236.5 sf House + 108 sf shed= 2344.5 sf≤ 4618 AREA OF ADDITION AT BACK 438.5 SF FOOTPRINT DN35' SETBACK FROM TOP OF BANK BY SURVEYOR FIELD CREW SURVEYED CREEK (E) GAS METER (E) ELECTRICAL SERVICE ENTRANCE CREEK BANK PER SURVEY 90.6 EL 91.2 EL 73' EL 67' EL T .O . C U R B 9 1 .1 E L T .O . C U R B 9 0 .3 E L AVG TOP OF CURB ELEVATION 90.7' AVERAGE SIDE PROPERTY LINE EL. 85.6 AVERAGE SIDE PROPERTY LINE EL. 81.75 ±90.5 ±73 ±91 EL ±80.2 EL (E) WOOD RETAINING WALL BELOW THE CREEK BANK LINE NO WORK OR RESTORATION PROPOSED IN WITHIN THE CREEK 25' SETBACK TO CREEK BANK IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY (E) DSDS DOWNSPOUT LOCATION KEY (E) DS (E) DS(E) DS(E) DS(N) 4"Ø D.SPOUT OUTLET DOWN HILL FROM ADDITION FTG' & 4' MIN. TO PL W/ RIPRAP DISSIPATOR 6' MIN. @ FLOW LINE BELOW OUTLET (E) AC UNIT NO CHANGES NOTE: PROPERTY OWNER IMPROVEMENTS (DECK, RETAINING WALLS, POOL, SHED, DWELLING FOUNDATION, DRIVEWAY PAD, ETC.) CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 25' OF THE CREEKS TOP OF BANK SHALL STABILIZE THE SURROUNDING AREA TO PREVENT EROSION DUE TO STORMWATER DISCHARGE FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS. ANY VEGETATION THAT MAY IMPACT THE CREEK MUST BE REMOVED AND REPLACE WITH STABILIZED MATERIAL. (N) RIPRAP DISSIPATOR 6' MIN. @ (E) OR (N) RAINWATER LEADER OUTLET @ HILLSIDE NOTE: • THIS IS A TYPE 1 PROJECT AND REQUIRES A STORMWATER CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION PREVENTION PERMIT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. • ALL WATER LINES CONNECTION TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES, AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT THE CITY WATER DEPT. FOR CONNECTION FEES. IF REQUIRED ALL FIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2" & OVER WILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER. ALL UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS A SEPARATE UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. • A SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW SEWER FIXTURE PER ORDINANCE NO 1710. THE SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. • THE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL SHALL BE TESTED PER CHAPTER 15.10. TESTING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE BUILDING DEPT. COUNTER. S H SOFTSCAPE AREA HARDSCAPE AREA S H H S S S (E) GRAVEL (E) GATE (E) GATE H S S H(E) GATE FENCE LINE 25' SETBACK TO CREEK BANK IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY (E) LAWNMULCH M U LC H M U LC H (E) GARDEN WALL (E) SAND DRIVEWAY W/ PAVING SQUARES (E) SEWER CLEANOUT CONTRACTOR TO FOLLOW ARBORIST REPORT PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE (E) TREE IN THE PROPOSED TERRACE AREA (E) LAWN AREA PROPOSED POOL EQUIPMENT LOCATION SUB SOIL DEDICATED RAINWATER DRAIN PIPE TO DAYLIGHT H H (N) SAND SET STONE OR PRECAST CONCRETE T.B.D (N) PAVING SQUARES IN GRASS/ DYMONDIA PROPOSED (11) (N) ROCKET CYPRESS OR SMILAR COLUMNAR EVERGREENS 10 2 A B C 35'± 10'-6"2'-8"10'438.50 sq ft LOT 18, BLK 19 (23 M 45) 2313 RAY DRIVE 11,545 SQ FT APN: 025-182-400 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FIN. FLR 92.85' REF EL. 0'-0" PROPOSED TERRACE 3 RISERS MAX. A.F.G. 1" BELOW FLR. LEVEL (N) TIMBER RETAINING WALL30" HIGH MAX T.O.W. EL 75'SAND SET PAVINGSQUARE TERRACEUP9'X22' POOL S H S PLANTERPROPOSED SWIMMING POOL NOTES: CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND PROVIDE PROPERTY FENCING PROTECTING THE POOL AREA. FENCING MUST BE 5' MIN. WITH NO OPENINGS LARGE ENOUGH FOR A 4" SPHERE TO PASS AND NO FOOTHOLDS, PROJECTIONS, CAVITIES OR OTHER PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAN SERVE AS HANDHOLDS OR FOOTHOLDS THAT WOULD ENABLE A CHILD YOUNGER THAN THE AGE OF 5 YEARS OLD TO CLIMB OVER THE FENCE. ALL PROPERTY FENCE GATES PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE POOL AREA MUST BE SELF CLOSING & LATCHING POOL SAFETY GATES. RV GATES ARE NOT ALLOWED. POOL TO COMPLY WITH SWIMMING POOL SAFETY ACT HS CODE §115920-115929 & 2019 CBC §3109.2 PROVIDE BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. AN APPROVED SAFETY POOL COVER COMPLYING WITH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF (ASTM) F1346-91. 2. AUDIO EXIT ALARMS FROM EVERY DOOR WITH ACCESS TO THE POOL AREA FROM THE HOME 1 1/8" = 1'-0" Site Plan Proposed 58'-2 1/4" 60'-2 3/4"